text:
These Terms and Conditions set the rules and the method for using the following on-line services: www.poland-transport.eu,www.poland-furniture.com,bjxhxw.com, bjxhxw.com.pt, bjxhxw.com.fr, www.poland-export.pl, www.poland-export.de, www.poland-export.it, www.poland-export.ru, www.poland-export.es, www.poland-export.se, being part of Poland-Export On-line service group, the proprietor and publisher of which is bjxhxw.com T. Winnicki i Wspólnicy Sp. J. based in 02-785 Warsaw at Puszczyka street No. 17/19/45, registered in the register of entrepreneurs of the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw, 13th Commercial Department, KRS (court registry number): 0000313770, NIP (tax ID): 9512266177, REGON (statistical number): 141575122.
Following the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) - please find below information on the processing of data where data subject are users of our on-line services:
Personal data administrator (controller)
Data administrator is bjxhxw.com T. Winnicki i Wspólnicy Sp. J. based in 02-785 Warsaw at Puszczyka street No. 17/19/45.
Contact on matters associated with data processing is possible via contact from by providing Personal Data in the subject line.
Basis and purpose of data processing
澳门新葡亰2229Personal data will be processed for the following purpose:
• including in resources of Poland-Export for publication on websites - Art. 6 section 1 letter f, GDPR
Scope of presented personal data
Personal data include:
- enterprise name which includes its (business) name
澳门新葡亰2229- enterprise headquarters address and possibly addresses of enterprise branches, e-mail address, telephone number, website
Also, at explicit request, the data base may include details of contact persons, including their name and surname, position as well as business phone number and email address
Data processing period
澳门新葡亰2229 • Data will be processed in Poland-Export data base until such time when a request for removal or explicit objection is received
• Data disclosed to Poland-Export business partners - until such time when a request for removal or explicit objection is received
Data availability
澳门新葡亰2229Data published on websites will be the property An exception are commonly available weak magnets for fastening notes. Personal data may be disclosed to employees or associates of Poland-Export as well as operators providing services to Poland-Export, under concluded entrustment agreements
Origin of data
Publically available and accessible data sources, such as websites, Central Registration and Information on Business, REGON system
Rights of data subjects
Since Poland-Export is involved in processing of your personal data, you are entitled to:
• have access personal data,
• rectify personal data,
• remove personal data (the right to be forgotten),
• restrict processing of personal data,
澳门新葡亰2229 • transfer personal data to another data administrator (controller),
• submit objection to processing personal data
澳门新葡亰2229 • withdraw consent at any time and by any means when Poland-Export will process your data based on consent provided, with no impact on the lawfulness of data processing, which was made on the basis of consent given before its withdrawal;
澳门新葡亰2229 • lodge a complaint to the Head of the Office for Personal Data Protection if it is found that data processing has violated the provisions of the Regulation.
Cookies and IP
For technical reasons, which significantly improve the functionality and use of our website, we use cookies saved on users' computers and we collect information about the IP address. These data are not disclosed. Should you choose to delete cookies from your own computer, this may cause difficulties in using our website, for which Poland-Export will not be responsible. By using, in any way, Poland-Export website, you acknowledge and accept the rules contained in the Privacy Policy on Poland-Export website. We reserves the right to make changes in the Privacy Policy. The current Privacy policy applies to any person using, in any way, Poland-Export in-line services.
Cookie Policy
澳门新葡亰2229 1. The website uses the so-called cookies, i.e. information saved by servers on user's end device, which can read by servers every time user's end device is connected, other technologies may also be used, featuring functions similar or identical to cookies. In this document, information about cookies also applies to other similar technologies used within our websites. Cookie files are IT data, in particular text files, which are stored on the end device of the user to this website. Cookies usually contain the name of the domain of website they come from, the time period for which they are stored on the end device and a unique number.
2. Cookies are used for the following purpose:
a) matching the content of on-line service websites to preferences of the user and optimisation of the use of websites; in particular, these files enable to recognise the device of website user and properly display the website, tailored to their individual needs,
澳门新葡亰2229b) generating statistics that help understand how website users use websites, which enables improving website structure and content,
c) maintaining user sessions of the website (upon signing in), so that the users does not have to re-enter their login and password on each subpage of the website,
d) providing users with advertising content more tailored to their interests.
澳门新葡亰22293. On our websites, we may use the following types of cookies:
澳门新葡亰2229a) 'necessary' cookies, enabling the use of services available as part of the website, such as authentication cookies used for services that require authentication on the website,
b) cookies used to ensure security, such as cookies used to detect fraud involving authentication within the website,
c) cookies enabling the collection of information on the use of website pages,
澳门新葡亰2229d) 'functional' cookies, allowing 'remembering' the settings selected by the user and personalising user interface, such as cookies remembering selected language or region of the user, size of the font, appearance of the website, etc.,
e) 'advertising' cookies, used to provide users with advertising content more tailored to their interests
澳门新葡亰22294. In many cases the software used for web sites browsing (Internet browser) enables to place "cookies" on user's end device by default. Cookie setting may be change at any time by service users. These settings can be changed in particular in such a way as to block the automatic handling of cookies in the settings of the web browser or notifying, each time, posting in the device of website user. Detailed information on the possibility and methods of handling cookies is available in software (Internet browser) settings. Failure to change cookie settings means that they will be included in the user's end device, and thus we will store information on the user's end device and access this information.
5. Disabling the use of cookies may cause difficulties in using our website service.
6. Cookies can be placed on the end device of the user to this website and then used by cooperating advertisers, research companies and multimedia application providers.
澳门新葡亰2229The materials and data contained in the website must not be used on other websites. These are publications created by employees with knowledge and with the help of Poland-Export customers, and therefore protected by copyright.
Help needed ?
If you have not found the desired product, company, service or the searching results are not satisfactory for you, do not hesitate to contact us and tell what you are looking for or what you need. We will send your inquiry directly to the interested companies.
Write to us


text:
- File
- 1957-1988
Press cuttings.
"Building peace in the minds of men and women"
Press cuttings.
Press cuttings on UNESCO and press freedom.
Press cuttings on the "New World Information and Communication Order".
"Situation de l'UNESCO au temps présent"
STA REPORT: "Pour une authentique réforme de l'UNESCO".
A Juridical Analysis of the Scope and Method of UNESCO
Amadou Mahtmar M'Bow Interview
Beginnings of Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura mandate
Most of the bibliographies were established between 1960 and 1980 and are therefore neither complete nor up-to-date, but might still aid researchers as a starting point for older material.
Bibliographies on Social Sciences
UNESCO Publications and important articles in periodicals about Asia
Biographical files of staff members, experts, consultants, delegates etc. These biographical information do not claim to be complete in any way. They are more an arbitrary collection, updated on an irregular basis, which might be useful as additional information for researchers.
Copies on microfiches of part of the Charles S. Ascher Papers, 1926-1979, preserved by the Columbia University, containing the pages concerning UNESCO.
Ascher, Charles
File contains recording of interview of C. Kecskeméti interview by Chief Archivist Jens Boel.
Collection of research on UNESCO
Collection consists of relevant research on the Organization (dissertations, papers, articles etc.), mostly done by scholars who used the archives for their research work. Researchers are asked to send a copy of their work back to the Archives which then registers it sequentially under the three series in this Collection.
Press cuttings on UNESCO and press freedom.
Conference "A culture of Innovation".
Material of the conference in Moscow entitled "A culture of Innovation".
Consequences of withdrawal from UNESCO by a member state (4th extraordinary Executive Board session)
Copies and References to records preserved in other repositories
The UNESCO Archives collected references to documents which concern the organization and its activities but are preserved in other repositories than the UNESCO Archives. In some cases, copies of these documents were acquired by UNESCO and are available in the archives.
Copy of a correspondance from Jean Thomas to Picasso.
Copy of a correspondance from Jean Thomas to Picasso confirming him the asking of the Organization for its decoration as well as Picasso's fees for this work.
Copy of the book "U.N.E.S.C.O." by Jean Thomas.
Copy of the book "U.N.E.S.C.O." by Jean Thomas.
Correspondance from the Ambassador of the United Kingdom TJ Craddock to the Director General Koïshiro Matsuura.
Correspondence from the Ambassador of the United Kingdom TJ Craddock to the Director General Koïshiro Matsuura on "UNESCO's work in support of education for all" and comments on this correspondence.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Congo / Zaire
Espagne (Spain)
Holy See
South Africa
United Kingdom
Debates on the United States of America withdrawal from UNESCO.
Documents and articles on United States of America withdrawal from UNESCO.
Documents and articles on the withrawal of the United States of America from the UNESCO.
Documents of the Office of Public Information on the withdrawal of USA.
Draft for UNESCO's programme for 1951
This collection mostly deals with the United States of America's withdrawal from UNESCO in 1984 as well as its consequences on the management of the UNESCO until 2004.
Fawtier Interview and Transcript
File consists of sound recording and transcript of an oral history interview of Mme Fawtier conducted by Jens Boel.
Gérard Bolla Interview and Transcript
File consists of audio-recordings of the oral history interview of Gérard Bolla and the transcripts of the sessions. The interview was conducted by Chief Archivist Jens Boel and transcribed by former staff member Françoise Laporte.
Report on UNESCO human ressources.
Issues on UNESCO crisis: "The media crisis", "Policy Review" & "International Social Science : The UNESCO experience"
File consists of a sound recording of an interview of Jacques Havet, conducted by Gail Archibald.
Jean Bhownagary Interview and Transcript
File contains a sound recording and transcript of the oral history interview of jean Bhownagary by Chief Archivist Jens Boel, transcribed by former staff member Karola Ferru.
File contains audio recording of interview of Julian Behrstock conducted by Gail Archibald.
Personal files concerning three aspects of UNESCO's programme: Free Flow of Information, Mass Media and Book Development.
Behrstock, Julian
Diary from 1 - 15 February 1957 of Luther Evans and microcopies of part of his personal papers.
Evans, Luther
Official, semi-official and private correspondence of Maurice Dartigue.
Memo From Dragoljub Najman to the Director-General Koïshiro Matsuura.
Memo From Dragoljub Najman to the Director-General Koïshiro Matsuura on the relations between the United States of America and the UNESCO.
Memo from the Director of the Division of Educational Structures and Teacher Training, EDS, Dragoljub Najman to the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO.
Memo from the Director of the Division of Educational Structures and Teacher Training, EDS, Dragoljub Najman to the Director-General of UNESCO on the subject: "Your mission to Japan".
File contains recording of Gail Archibald's interview with Michel Batisse.
Michel Debeauvais Interview and Transcript
File contains a recording of the interview of Michel Debeauvais with Etienne Brunswic.
Microcopies of Luther Evans' personal papers
Copies of part of the Luther Evans Papers, 1952-1970, preserved by the Columbia University.
Copies of the Papers of Philip Quincy Wright.
The papers contain the following documents written probably between 1949 and 1952, for the Director General of UNESCO:
Wright, Philip Quincy
Pierre Henquet Interview and Transcript
Press cuttings from 1984, 1983, 1982 and 1978.
Press cuttings on the Election of the General Director.
Press cuttings: 1rst quarter 1985.
Press cuttings: 2nd quarter 1985.
Press cuttings: 3rd quarter 1985.
Press cuttings: 4th quarter 1985.
Publications, documents and records on UNESCO
The Archive Group contains publications, articles, films, research, documents and records about UNESCO, its purpose and its activities. It also contains a number of small private fonds of former staff members, consultants, and delegates.
Reaction from member states after the USA withdrawal: Belgium, Japan, FRG & USSR.
Reference to US Congress' records on UNESCO
Copies of microfiche lists of records on US and UNESCO

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hot Reads: Key Super Bowl matchup isn't what you think
By now, everyone has heard that Denver's NFL-best offense is going against Seattle's league-leading defense. The real key to the Super Bowl, however, could be the opposite matchup—the Broncos' defense vs. the Seahawks' offense.
In his latest Hot Reads video, Hall of Fame quarterback and Fox analyst Troy Aikman says he's as interested as anyone to see whether Peyton Manning can overcome a Seahawks defense "that really doesn't have any weaknesses," but a critical, less-hyped element to the game will be Denver's ability to slow Marshawn Lynch.
The Broncos struggled defensively during the first part of the season, but in the team's last four games, it has allowed just 70 yards rushing per game.
Lynch, who had 1,257 rushing yards during the regular season, has rushed for an average of 124.5 yards during the playoffs.
"Denver had had some issues during the year in defense," Aikman told Sporting News host Rayven Tirado. "… They've been much improved over their last four games, and that's going to be the challenge for Denver, is how well they can handle the running game of Seattle."
Aikman also said the key for both teams is having a good week of preparation before they arrive to New York, when the media demands will serve as a distraction. That includes not only game-planning and film study but also personal issues such as getting tickets to family members.
Aikman said taking care of that beforehand will help players remember the real reason they're in New York.
"It's shortly after that NFC championship game or AFC championship game as a winner that you realize, Wow, just getting to the Super Bowl really isn't enough. It really comes down winning. Nobody ultimately remembers who lost this game."


text:
Gout causes sudden severe joint pain. See a GP for treatment to help during an attack and to stop further attacks.
Non-urgent advice: See a GP if you have:
- sudden severe pain in any joint – usually the big toe, or fingers, wrists, elbows or knees
- red, hot, swollen skin over the affected joint
These are symptoms of gout.
Gout does not cause lasting damage to joints if you get treatment straight away.
Ask for an urgent appointment or call 111 if:
- the pain is getting much worse and you have a very high temperature (you feel hot and shivery)
This could mean you have an infection inside the joint.
What happens at your appointment
Gout can be hard to diagnose as symptoms are similar to other conditions.
A GP may ask about your diet and if you drink beer or spirits.
You might be sent for a blood test, ultrasound or X-ray.
Sometimes a thin needle is used to take a sample of fluid from the affected joint to test.
The tests will find out how much of a chemical called uric acid there is in your body.
Having too much can lead to crystals forming around your joints and causing pain.
Attacks of gout are usually treated with anti-inflammatory medicine like ibuprofen.
If the gout does not improve after 3 to 4 days, you might be given steroids as tablets or an injection.
take any medicine you have been prescribed as soon as possible – it should start to work within 3 days
rest and raise the limb
keep the joint cool – apply an ice pack, or a bag of frozen peas wrapped in a towel, for up to 20 minutes at a time
drink lots of water (unless advised not to by a GP)
try to keep bedclothes off the affected joint at night
do not knock the joint or put pressure on it
Treatment to prevent gout coming back
Gout can come back every few months or years. It can come back more often if not treated.
If you have frequent attacks or you have high levels of uric acid in your blood, you may need uric acid-lowering medicine.
It's important to take uric acid-lowering medicine regularly, even when you no longer have symptoms.
Making lifestyle changes might mean you can stop or reduce further attacks.
get to a healthy weight, but avoid crash diets – you could try the NHS weight loss plan
aim for a healthy, balanced diet, with plenty of vegetables and some low-fat dairy foods
have at least 2 alcohol-free days a week
drink plenty of fluids to avoid getting dehydrated
exercise regularly – but avoid intense exercise or putting lots of pressure on joints
stop smoking
ask a GP about vitamin C supplements
do not eat a lot of red meat, kidneys, liver or seafood
do not have lots of sugary drinks and snacks
do not have lots of fatty foods
do not drink more than 14 units of alcohol a week (and do not have it all on 1 or 2 days)
The UK Gout Society has more detailed advice on diet for people living with gout (PDF, 879kb).
Things that can trigger a gout attack
You might get an attack if you're very stressed or have had an illness.
If you injure or bruise a joint and it's more painful than you'd expect after a minor bump, it could be an attack coming on.
Get treatment straight away if you feel an attack coming on.
Who gets gout
Gout sometimes runs in families.
It's more common in men, especially as they get older.
Other people at risk include:
- women after the menopause
- people who take medicines such as diuretics (water tablets) for blood pressure, or have high levels of cholesterol
- people who are overweight and who drink alcohol, especially beer
Complications of gout
It's rare to get lots of attacks, but if you do, you can develop permanent damage to the joint (chronic gout).
Chronic gout can also cause tiny white lumps (tophi) to appear under your skin, especially on your ears, fingers or elbows.
This is where urate crystals form under the skin. They can be painful.
You can get kidney stones if your uric acid levels are very high, so you'll need treatment to reduce the levels.
Social care and support guide
If you:
- need help with day-to-day living because of illness or disability
- care for someone regularly because they're ill, elderly or disabled (including family members)
Our guide to care and support explains your options and where you can get support.


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Trish Regan, Chaka Fattah, Steve Scalise, Todd Harris, Steve McMahon, Ari Rabin-Havt, Joan Walsh, Pervez Musharaf
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Democrats to voters—No change.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington.
Leading off tonight: Who takes the fall? This Tuesday, voters demanded change. As of this Friday, Democrats have their answer. No change coming, nothing. The White House staff—great team, doing great. Why change? No change there. The cabinet—doing a great job, everybody. Why change? No change there. And the congressional leadership, why change? No change.
Today Nancy Pelosi said she will remain as the House Democratic leader. Harry Reid stays on as the leader of the Senate Democrats. So let's see, after the biggest Democratic defeat in the House since 1938, more than 60 seats gone, no change in the cabinet, no change in the White House, no change on Capitol Hill. Everything's hunky-dory.
Actually, it gets worse. The trouble's not going away, it's going to get worse. The week after next comes the big public hearing on New York's Charles Rangel. The week after that, the hearing on California's Maxine Waters, both on ethics charges. What gives? The lights are on up on Capitol Hill. Is anyone home? Have the Democrats condemned themselves to an endless autumn of despair? Do they think people don't notice when you knock on the door and no one opens?
Plus, mid-term exam. Even if the Democrats didn't learn anything from the mid-term elections, others did. The HARDBALL strategists are here to debate what happened and what might happen next.
And if anyone thought the Republican win would tone down the gung-ho right, think about it. The latest is that President Obama's trip to India will involve 3,000 people, 34 warships will be dispatched, and will cost, the trip, $2 billion. Do you buy this nonsense, or do you just sell it? Do they buy it, or are they just selling it, this angry stuff?
Also, in this corner, a 7-Eleven Slurpee. In that corner, a glass of Merlot. Washington's latest blue versus red state battle lines in the HARDBALL "Sideshow."
Finally, "Let Me Finish" tonight with former president Bush, his new book and more evidence of his world view that something becomes true if you simply say it's true.
We start with the Democrats. Congressman Steve Scalise is a Republican from Louisiana and Congressman Chaka Fattah is a Democrat from Pennsylvania. Gentlemen, thank you both and congratulations both, perhaps more so to Chaka Fatah because it's always tough this year for a Democrat to get reelected. So sir, as always, I extend to you my warm congratulations, and also to you, Mr. Scalise. I have great respect—
REP. STEVE SCALISE ®, LOUISIANA: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: -- for public officials, especially ones who put their good name and their reputation on the line to face the voters every two years in the people's House.
Now, Speaker Pelosi's letter to her Democratic colleagues reads, in part, "Many of our colleagues have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic leader. Based on those discussions and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I've decided to run."
Let me go to Congressman Fattah. It's in your caucus. It's your support that matters to her. Is it important that after you take a drubbing and lose 60-some seats that the Democratic leadership shows some sign of having heard the message, or should they continue on as they were? What's the answer?
REP. CHAKA FATAH (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I think what's important is that you believe and you have a set of convictions. Now, we believe we did the right thing on behalf of the country. This is a protracted fight to perfect our union, and we lost a round on Tuesday. But when you have adversity, it induces (ph) one to themselves. And we're committed to what we're doing.
And there's only one person in our ranks who ever served as a minority leader who led us into the majority. That's Nancy Pelosi. We believe that she can do it again. Now, the fact of the matter is that when I voted against the Iraq war, it was popular in the country. The majority of the people supported it. Well, now the majority of the people think it was a mistake. We put 5 million kids on health care insurance through the CHIP program, 30 million adults through the Affordable Care Act. It's not popular today. Well, when we did the Voting Rights Act, it wasn't popular.
FATTAH: When—you know, you go through a whole list of things that weren't popular. You have to do what's right. We did it. We suffered the consequences. We're going to stick and stay and go forward into the next election, and we're going to keep fighting on behalf of working families.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me try to offer some reporting up here, Congressman Fattah. It seems to me that the story out there I've gotten, as of a few minutes ago, is that Nancy Pelosi understood she'd become a lightning rod across the country, being from San Francisco, a liberal town, and being a leader, as you say, fighting for all these tough causes, and offered to pull out of this race and let Chris Van Hollen take her place. But she couldn't transfer her votes effectively enough to defeat Steny Hoyer, who's majority right now and wants the job. Is that the fact or not the fact, what I just?
FATTAH: It's not the fact. And again, there's one person who has the
MATTHEWS: She didn't offer to step aside for Chris van Hollen to take on Steny but the votes weren't there? That didn't happen, you're saying?
FATTAH: It didn't happen. And the experience of leading us as the minority leader into the majority belongs to singly one person in our caucus, Nancy Pelosi.
MATTHEWS: But she didn't offer to pull out?
FATTAH: She's done it before.
MATTHEWS: OK, one last try, Congressman. Nancy Pelosi never said that she would let Chris Van Hollen run because she recognized that she'd become a lightning rod?
FATTAH: Look, if you're in a boxing match and you lose a round, that doesn't mean you don't get up and answer the next round. We'll be back. We're going to stand for what we believe in.
FATTAH: And we believe that as we go forward, we will win and lose elections—
FATTAH: -- but we have to stick to our principles.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Congressman Scalise about the Republican Party. Is your party going to negotiate with President Obama, or simply try to get him out of office—remove his health care plan, basically impeach him, make him irrelevant and then get rid of him? Is that your goal?
SCALISE: No, Chris, our goal is to get the American economy back on track and create jobs. And if you look, the last two years, we've actually proposed solutions to try to accomplish those things, but President Obama and Speaker Pelosi basically said, We've got the votes, we're just going to discount the Republican ideas and we're going to ram this liberal agenda down your throat. Well, Tuesday night, the American people soundly rejected that liberal agenda.
You know, I'm surprised that Speaker Pelosi is still so tone deaf that she still wants to stick around and hold onto that power as long as she can. But I mean, you know, whether John Boehner yanks that gavel out of her hand or not, she's going to lose the gavel and the airplane and all those other things, and she's just got to recognize that there was a sounding (SIC) defeat that that liberal agenda took—
MATTHEWS: Well, you're a little—
SCALISE: -- and the country just doesn't want us going down that road.
MATTHEWS: Why is everybody so petty? She doesn't get the airplane as minority leader.
SCALISE: Well, I mean, ultimately, you got to look at—
MATTHEWS: Why are you talking about that thing?
SCALISE: -- what the right agenda is—
MATTHEWS: And why are you throwing a shot at her about the airplane that she doesn't get as Speaker?
SCALISE: You know—
MATTHEWS: She won't be Speaker. We know that. So why did you say she's trying to hold onto the airplane? She doesn't get—
SCALISE: Chris, I'm just—
MATTHEWS: -- an airplane as majority leader?
SCALISE: Chris, I'm just surprised—
MATTHEWS: So you just took a cheap shot there.
SCALISE: I'm just surprised that—
MATTHEWS: That was just a cheap shot.
SCALISE: -- they don't get the message that was sent.
MATTHEWS: No, but why did you throw in the airplane part? What's that got to do with the American people and producing jobs?
SCALISE: Well, regardless—regardless of all of that, I've said—
MATTHEWS: What has that got to do—
SCALISE: -- what our agenda is going to be—
MATTHEWS: -- with producing jobs? Sir, you ask for bipartisan cooperation—
SCALISE: Our agenda is going to be producing jobs, Chris.
MATTHEWS: -- and then you throw the old—you know, the old skunk at her. You know, why is it relevant whether she has an airplane or not? She won't have one as Republican (SIC) leader, so why bring it up? I'm just asking why'd you bring it up.
SCALISE: Well, Chris, I told you at the very beginning what our agenda is going to be, and in fact—
SCALISE: -- we've reached out to the president—
MATTHEWS: Your agenda seems to be to dump on her. Let me ask you this—
SCALISE: No, but we've reached out to the president—
MATTHEWS: Why do you guys do the cheap shots—
SCALISE: -- to work with us.
MATTHEWS: Look, here's the thing the American people listen to. They go, Wait a minute, they want to get along, all they have to do is meet and negotiate the issues of taxes.
Now, it seems to me—I want to go back to Congressman Fattah. It seems to me the president has put up not the white flag, but he—not throwing in the towel, but he said, Look, we'll negotiate on things like accelerate depreciation for business. We'll talk about the tax cut and how we can extend it. His primary goal is for middle class people. He may have to extend it at least temporarily for people with more money.
Is that true? Your president is negotiating? He's actually doing it in public, from what I can tell, on these big issues?
FATTAH: Well, the president has been reaching out to Republicans from the beginning. When he came over and visited the Republican caucus two years ago, they had already decided that they were all going to vote no on everything. But we still have a million more jobs this year, private sector job increases. We saw 150,000 new jobs in the day's report. Those are to the credit of the Democratic Congress.
And even if we lost seats—you know, Chris, we lost seats when we passed the assault weapons ban. There were members who walked on the floor and said, I'm going to lose my seat, but I'm going to save thousands of lives. We have to do what's right on behalf of our country. The politics will take care of itself.
The Republicans now have to join the governing majority. They have to offer real solutions and vote for them. And they have to add up. The math has to add up. If they want $4 trillion in tax cuts and they want to balance the budget, they can't offer up $16 billion in cuts and say somehow that balances.
MATTHEWS: Your thoughts on that, Congressman Scalise. Do you have to balance off—if there's more tax relief coming in terms of continuing the Bush tax cuts, does that have to be offset with spending cuts?
SCALISE: Well, Chris, I think our responsibility is to lay out an agenda that actually solves the problems of the country, and we started that with the "Pledge to America." One of the things we said was, day one, when we come out, we're laying out $100 billion in spending cuts because we've got to get control on spending. We've also got to have stability in the tax code. I think the worse thing we can do in our economy is raise taxes on anybody because we need to create jobs.
MATTHEWS: Well, OK. So you want—
SCALISE: And our small businesses are afraid—
MATTHEWS: So what about this negotiation—
SCALISE: -- to make an investment.
MATTHEWS: -- with the president? Are you going to negotiate with him on how to extend some of the Bush tax cuts, or are you going to say all or nothing? What's your position, all or nothing?
SCALISE: We're going to sit down—we're going to sit down with the president, and if he's willing to work with us, we've got a lot of things that we want to put down as an agenda that we can work with him on.
MATTHEWS: Will you negotiate with him—
SCALISE: And I hope he does that.
MATTHEWS: -- on taxes, or do you just have an absolute bottom line? The Bush tax cuts continue permanently forever and no discussion? Is that your position?
SCALISE: Look, it's not about my position or the president's position or anybody else's—
MATTHEWS: Well, why can't you tell me?
SCALISE: This is about—well, Chris, first of all—
MATTHEWS: Tell me! Will you negotiate with the president—
SCALISE: You show me one economist that says raising taxes on anybody
in tough times is going to create jobs. It actually will kill jobs. And
so we've got to be focused on an agenda that gets people back to work. And
that's what we're going to be working towards. And it has nothing to do
with ideology, it has to do with the things that have been found and proven
MATTHEWS: Would you—would you—would you be willing now to say that you like the idea of the president's effort through the nonpartisan or bipartisan debt commission to try to reduce, in a bipartisan fashion, the federal debt over time, especially dealing with issues like the entitlements? Are you willing to go along with that item?
SCALISE: Well, we all need to be focused on not only reducing—
MATTHEWS: Well, no—
SCALISE: -- the deficit and the debt—
MATTHEWS: -- the debt commission, which is bipartisan.
SCALISE: Yes, as long as it's not—
MATTHEWS: Will you back it?
SCALISE: As long as it's not a group that's set up to try to raise taxes. And there is concern about that because, again, tax increases have never been proven to help anything, except growing the size of government and killing jobs.
MATTHEWS: So you think—so you already have poisoned the well by saying it's just a tax-writing committee.
SCALISE: Well, it seems that way, but we've got to see what they come out with. But I'm sure we're not—
MATTHEWS: Paul Ryan's on that group.
SCALISE: -- going to blanket (INAUDIBLE)
MATTHEWS: Paul Ryan's a tax—is he a tax and spender?
SCALISE: Well, Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling—no, Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling have very sound plans. They're in a minority—
MATTHEWS: Is Alan Simpson a taxer?
SCALISE: They're in the minority of that committee, so—
MATTHEWS: Isn't Alan Simpson over there as co-chair? Is he a taxer?
SCALISE: I'll reserve judgment until they come out with a plan, but I hope it's not a plan to raise taxes because that would not be a plan that makes any sense.
MATTHEWS: So no matter how many cuts there are in spending in that program, no matter how—what the ratio is of spending cuts to tax increases, you aren't going to buy it.
SCALISE: Well, I want to have a plan that creates jobs, and raising taxes kills jobs, Chris. And you can see it in the—
MATTHEWS: OK, balancing the budget over time kills jobs?
SCALISE: Balancing the budget is what we need to do, but cutting taxes—
MATTHEWS: I know. I know.
SCALISE: -- has actually been proven to help balance the budget. We just have to control spending.
MATTHEWS: So you're a supply-sider. You're a supply-sider.
SCALISE: Yes, I am.
MATTHEWS: You're not a fiscalist. You're not a budget hawk.
SCALISE: I'm a fiscal conservative. And in fact, we've—
MATTHEWS: No, you're a supply-sider.
SCALISE: -- balanced the budget while—
MATTHEWS: It's one or the other. I know, I know, I know. You got the dream world—
SCALISE: No, it's not one or the other, Chris-
MATTHEWS: If you lower the tax rate, the more money comes in, right?
SCALISE: Go look at—go look at—
MATTHEWS: In other words, the more the government reduces the taxes, the more revenues flow in, right? Just keep lowering the rate.
SCALISE: If you control spending.
MATTHEWS: No, just keep lowering the rate.
SCALISE: If you lower the rate and control spending, you'll balance -
MATTHEWS: Well, that's—OK—
SCALISE: -- the budget.
FATTAH: Well, let me just say this, Chris—
MATTHEWS: You know what? This sounds like ideological malarkey.
FATTAH: Let me just say this, Chris—
MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Congressman Fattah.
MATTHEWS: Are you going to back this budget commission, the debt commission the president's put together, bipartisan commission? Because all this talk—
FATTAH: That commission is going to report on December 1.
MATTHEWS: Right.
FATTAH: There's going to be an up or down vote, and I'm going to vote to get our fiscal house in order. What we need—and it has to be bipartisan. That is, it has to have Republican support. And Senator Coburn from—is on that commission. Paul Ryan's on there. I don't think that we can suggest that they're not going to be responsible. If they offer up a proposal that rights our fiscal ship, it's the most important signal we can send to the markets not just here but around the world, and it's the way that we start to get our economy in a healthy position so that it can grow jobs.
MATTHEWS: Congressman Scalise, last word?
SCALISE: Ultimately, I want to see us not only balance the federal budget but lay out a path that gets our economy back on track and creates jobs. Tax increases has been proven not to do it. Cutting taxes works. The problem we've had with deficits is that when they cut taxes, it brings in more money, but Congress spent too much money that created those deficits. So control spending and cut taxes. That's a formula for job growth and stability in our economy.
MATTHEWS: So cutting taxes—if you were to cut the tax rate dramatically today, Congressman, are you saying we would have more federal revenue?
SCALISE: Yes. And in fact, history shows, when the Bush tax cuts—
MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking you if you believe—
SCALISE: -- went into effect in 2003. Go look at—
MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking you—
SCALISE: -- the numbers, Chris. Go look at the numbers under Reagan and Bush. It works.
MATTHEWS: In other words, why don't we lower the tax rate to—why don't we lower all taxes down to about 1 percent, or frankly, just 1 or 2 percent because by your theory, the lower the rate goes, the more revenue flows in. That is insane.
SCALISE: Look, I'll challenge you to go look at the numbers. When they cut taxes in '03, you had 48 consecutive months of job growth, and the federal government took in more money.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I noticed that we had—
SCALISE: Forty-eight straight months!
FATTAH: Chris—
MATTHEWS: We have—we doubled the national debt under Bush.
SCALISE: Go look at the numbers! Go look at the numbers—
MATTHEWS: I look at them all the time. And you know what happened.
FATTAH: We tried this under Bush, eight years, tax cuts, we know what happened. Our economy fell off a cliff.
SCALISE: -- spent too much money.
FATTAH: -- millions of jobs lost while the Republicans were in charge of the Congress.
SCALISE: It's the spending!
MATTHEWS: Ronald Reagan was president for eight years. He got the supply-side gobbledy-gook for eight years. We ended up doubling the national debt. He never balanced the budget, never got near balancing it.
SCALISE: The Democratic Congress did do that, you're right.
MATTHEWS: It was always $300 billion—you know, there's always a way out. You know, your theory will never be tested.
FATTAH: We need to have broad-based tax reform. We need to balance our budget, all right, pay as we go. And we know who's fiscally responsible and we know what the Republicans have done, and you're going to see them again. They want to have $4 trillion in tax cuts, and they want to offer up—give them generously what he said, $100 billion in tax cuts. Tell me how that math adds up.
SCALISE: In spending.
SCALISE: In spending cuts. We've laid out the spending cuts—
MATTHEWS: OK, one of you gentlemen has said you'll support the bipartisan debt reduction effort in principle, one of you won't say you'll support it in principle. That's telling. Fiscal conservatives should be for balancing the budget, eventually—
SCALISE: Without tax increases.
MATTHEWS: -- and be for it in principle. That's politics. Thank you, sir. That is pure politics. Thank you—nobody likes taxes.
SCALISE: Democrats had a balanced budget.
MATTHEWS: Cutting taxes is the easiest political move in history.
FATTAH: Under President Clinton.
MATTHEWS: It require is no guts.
SCALISE: With a Republican Congress.
MATTHEWS: Anybody can cut taxes. You can be selling that on the street corner and people will buy it. Thank you, Congressman Scalise. Maybe that's why Republicans win elections, just promise free money. Thank you, Congressman Fattah. Coming up—
SCALISE: Go look at the numbers. But good to be with you.
FATTAH: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: And by the way, check the Reagan deficits, buddy. I was there, Congressman. He doubled the national debt. Your president, W. Bush, he doubled the national debt. It's a fact. Why do you keep denying the facts?
SCALISE: The federal government took in more money, Chris. The federal government took in more money. It was the spending that created the deficits.
MATTHEWS: The economy grows. Obviously, it brings in more money—
SCALISE: -- work every time.
MATTHEWS: Well, then just lower—by your theory, we should have 1 percent tax cuts—actually, 1 percent taxes, then we'll bring in zillions of dollars, by your theory. I'm sorry. I'm being sarcastic because—
MATTHEWS: I think it deserves sarcasm. Anyway, thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Please come back. We'll argue again. You're good at it.
SCALISE: Great to be with you.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Coming up: It looks like the Democrats have a real problem in big tent country, right across the industrial Midwest, that Scranton to Oshkosh sweep of the country. They don't like being called Rust Belt. (INAUDIBLE) help to get President Obama reelected. If you want him reelected, he better find a way to get reelected. That means jobs, and what they can do about it in the White House, and what they can do about it in Congress, and what did they learn from the mid-terms this week. It's only a couple days ago. Is the memory sinking in?
You're watch HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We're coming back in a minute with our strategists to talk about what we learned from Tuesday's mid-term elections. HARDBALL back after this.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We stopped paying attention to the fact that, you know, leadership isn't just legislation, that it's a matter of persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together and setting a tone and making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that, and I take personal responsibility for that.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
That was President Obama in an interview with "60 Minutes" that will air this Sunday on CBS. The president says that he—the midterm told him that he didn't make the case well enough.
So, what else did we learn from the midterm, except for bad communications?
Let's ask the strategists, Democratic expert Steve McMahon and
Republican expert Todd Harris, who just won a big election in Florida with
TODD HARRIS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: -- that nice little fellow there—
MATTHEWS: Just kidding.
HARRIS: That's senator-elect to you, buddy.
MATTHEWS: Senator-elect Rubio.
MATTHEWS: I shouldn't be derogatory. I have respect for winning the United States Senate.
Lesson number one, the red wave from Scranton to Oshkosh. I want to ask you, Steve, about this. Democrats—see that part of the country? I have been talking about it for weeks, but it was an astounding wipeout—
STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes.
MATTHEWS: -- all the way—I mean, Sestak ran a hell of race. Giannoulias ran a really good race, all beat and all the way across there right in that part of the country where we used to make everything in this country. We're not making anything in that part of the country much anymore.
MCMAHON: Right.
MATTHEWS: Is that part of the problem?
MCMAHON: That is actually—that is a big part of the problem. We're not making anything in that part of the country. People are feeling squeezed. They're feeling economically challenged. And they see—
MATTHEWS: They're blaming the D's.
MCMAHON: And they see a Democratic Party in Washington that they think is not doing enough to address their economic concerns.
And, as a result, you have got blue-collar Democrats that are now, you know, Reagan Democrats, some of whom are voting Republican. Independents, which Democrats used to carry fairly reliably by 18 or 20 points, now this time went for the Republicans by 18 or 20.
MATTHEWS: You have defined the problem. What can the Democrats do about it?
MCMAHON: Well, I think the Democrats have to figure out—they have to first of all understand that elections are won in the middle. And the president and the Democrats in the leadership have to figure out how to get the independent voter back, because if the independent voters go Republican by a 3-2 margin in 2012, we're going to see this again.
HARRIS: It's not a—this is not a foreign language for Democrats. Bill Clinton, better than just about any politician in recent memory, had a way of talking to and connecting the Democratic Party to the middle class.
And until the Democratic Party starts doing that again, I think they're going to continue to—
MATTHEWS: The real middle class, not the fancy middle class. You're right.
HARRIS: Yes, the real middle class, right.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HARRIS: And Clinton could do it. And this president can't.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's talk about your party for a second. It's more fun right now.
MATTHEWS: It's a lot more fun for some people, including me. It's more fun.
Let's take a look at the Tea Party crowd. It's interesting. If you look at them, I'm not going to say Sarah Palin is the magic wizard or anything, but I look at this race and I look at the people that won with her backing. Rand Paul probably didn't need her backing. He's a really—in many ways, he's a really gusty pol who says what he believes, which is so rare in politics, just: I'm a conservative. This is what I believe.
Rubio was way out ahead. But Haley, I think she definitely benefited in South Carolina from—she came way back from the pack because of the governor of Alaska at the time. And Rick Perry, of course, may be running for president. And he had his own act going there.
But, look, Ken Buck lost in Colorado, a close one. Carl Paladino was kind of a joke. Christine O'Donnell, again, not a serious politician. Sharron Angle, too extreme. So, what's the message on the Sarah Palin brand here?
HARRIS: Well, I'm not sure that it's just Palin.
MATTHEWS: The Tea Party.
HARRIS: I think I think it was a mixed bag. I think there's no question there our candidates like—
MATTHEWS: Again, you define the situation. What can she help with and what can't she do? Or what can the Tea Party do and they can't --
HARRIS: Both of them, whether Sarah Palin or the Tea Party, can create a lot of energy and a lot of enthusiasm. And you see that, whether it's in a state like Delaware, which is a blue state, or a state like Florida, the quintessential swing state.
I think that the lesson, I'm hoping, for a lot of the people involved in the Tea Party is a lesson that it took the Republican Party a very long time to learn, which is, you should nominate or back the most conservative candidate in the primary who can actually win a general election.
MATTHEWS: The health care thing. It's taken a lot of flogging, the health care issue, the health care—the Obama health care thing. But when you look at the polling numbers—and polling numbers have been really good this election. They're really—yes, as we all know, right up to Election Day, we were looking at the results almost.
MCMAHON: Yes.
MATTHEWS: There were very few surprises, maybe within one or two points.
And if people were—if you look at the polling data, it's not so bad on Obamacare. Despite all, bad sales pitch, nobody's out there selling it, nobody, and yet people are going, yes, mezza mezza, maybe a little bit negative, but, overall, it's not hated. It's not like—you know, Nancy Pelosi's not popular or some individual politician.
People are going, well, maybe.
MCMAHON: Right.
MATTHEWS: So, what is the story on health care? Nobody's sold it, everybody attacked it, and it's still hanging up there.
MCMAHON: Well, first of all, it's a lot easier to attack something that's complicated than it is to explain it. And so that was an advantage the Republicans had. They actually took good advantage of that fact.
I think health care reform is going to be more and more popular as time passes, because people will understand better what's in it. But what's really going on if you look at those numbers and behind those numbers is independents—so the numbers are mixed. It's about a 50/50 split.
But if you look at seniors, who vote all the time, the health care reform has not been adequately explained, is not very popular.
MATTHEWS: But they have health care already.
MCMAHON: Well, I know they do, but that's why they don't really feel like they needed to—we needed to pass health care reform to take care of all those other people.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
You mean the ship might sink?
MCMAHON: Well, maybe. And if you look at independent voters, health care reform isn't very popular, again probably because it hasn't been very well explained. But those are the two—those two groups—
MCMAHON: -- they don't like it.
MATTHEWS: Will your side gain politically if they spend the first six months of next year trying to impeach, basically, health care, the way they tried to impeach Clinton, just spend all their time trying to destroying something that was built? Will that help your party?
HARRIS: Well, if all of the focus is simply on repeal, and they're not talking about what kind of system they would replace it with, I don't think it's a political winner.
If they spend equal time talking about how we need to change the system, repeal this system, but what we want to replace it with, I think it can be a political winner. And here's why. The question of, do you support it or do you don't only tells a small part of the story.
HARRIS: Where the intensity was in this election was not—was people who are opposed to health care.
MATTHEWS: I agree. And, by the way, OK, 30 seconds.
MCMAHON: Mitch McConnell is not going to do—
MATTHEWS: Thirty seconds.
Why did big money seem to kill Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina?
MCMAHON: Well, because they ran in blue states and they were red candidates. And they were pretty well defined as red candidates.
MATTHEWS: OK. By the way, does big money still help you?
HARRIS: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Are you still better off being rich than poor?
HARRIS: Absolutely.
MCMAHON: You are, on the margin. But if you're a Republican trying to win a Democratic state, big money isn't going to do it.
MATTHEWS: So, the message that Meg Whitman lost because she just spent too much boodles of money is not the good message?
HARRIS: Yes, I don't buy that. California does have a long history of turning its back on—
MATTHEWS: Checchi.
HARRIS: Checchi, Huffington. There are a long history of big-spenders who have come up short.
MCMAHON: It's a blue state.
MATTHEWS: Interesting that people—you think it's simple?
MCMAHON: Blue state.
MATTHEWS: So you would like to have a rich Democrat?
MCMAHON: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MCMAHON: If there are any out there.
MATTHEWS: Good for consultants, too.
Anyway, thank you, Steve McMahon.
HARRIS: Steve McMahon, ladies and gentlemen.
MATTHEWS: What percent is it?
Anyway, Todd Harris, congratulations.
HARRIS: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: I think—I would like to have Rubio on the show, if you can bring him on.
MCMAHON: Todd will get him on.
MATTHEWS: That would be nice.
MATTHEWS: I will be tough, but not so tough with him. I will give him one nice—
HARRIS: Hey, we did seven debates.
MATTHEWS: One softball. Then we will get serious.
HARRIS: He can handle it.
MATTHEWS: Up next: It just may be Washington's latest blue vs.—battle, look, a Slurpee, which is a sort of blue, 7-11, or a glass of merlot, which is red wine, which Mr.—bad move, wasn't it? Bad move by Boehner. He wants a merlot, waiter.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
Remember this bizarre exchange from the president's post-election newser?
QUESTION: I want to ask if you're going to have John Boehner over for a Slurpee—
QUESTION: -- but I actually have a serious question.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I might serve a—they're delicious drinks.
QUESTION: Since—since—
OBAMA: The Slurpee summit. That's good. I like it.
MATTHEWS: That was Mark Halperin.
Anyway, not one to let the moment go to waste, 7/Eleven has come out with an ad today in the big papers, "One Slurpee Nation"—there it is—featuring red and blue straws in a purple drink.
I wish the politicians could be as lickety-split as the ad men.
By the way, Mr. Boehner yesterday was asked about that Slurpee summit. His response, he would prefer, as we said, a glass of merlot than—very well, sir, a glass of merlot coming up. So, it's red wine, the drink of the red states perhaps.
Next, a Shermanesque declaration, if I have ever heard one. Here's New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on making the big run for president, or not.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE ®, NEW JERSEY: I have said I don't want to. I'm not going to. There's zero chance I will. I don't feel like I'm ready to be president. I don't want to run for president. I don't have the fire in the belly to run for president.
But yet everybody still thinks, well, he's left the door open a little bit. And I don't—you know, short of suicide, I don't really know what I would have to do to convince you people that I'm not running.
I'm not running.
MATTHEWS: I love the way this guy talks. And I have to say, I like the guy. Christie may not run in 2012, but, boy, will he have an impact if a guy with that kind of moxie makes an endorsement.
Up next: Now that the midterms are over, it's back to insanity.
Many on the right are hyperventilating now about President Obama's trip to India. They're trying to say the trip is going to cost $2 billion overall—that's billion with a B. It's all false. It's all malarkey. This is my word tonight, malarkey. And they're saying it anyway.
You're watching HARDBALL.
They outsourced it from some newspaper in India, which has no source of information.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
TRISH REGAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi, everyone. I'm Trish Regan with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks clawing back to a positive close after some midday declines. Taking a look at those numbers, the Dow tacked on nine points. The S&P climbed four, and the Nasdaq inching up about a point-and-a-half. Investors locking in profits after a fifth straight week of gains. The S&P is already up 17 percent in September.
We were also seeing the results of a stronger dollar boosted by a surprisingly robust jobs report. Payrolls, they rose by 151,000 in the month of October. That's more than double what analysts had been anticipating. The unemployment rate, however, holding steady at 9.6 percent.
Wall Street did get its first glimpse of potential legal repercussions over mortgage-backed security lawsuits. A Bank of America filing show it's facing suits worth more than $375 billion.
Shares of Massey Energy soaring today on a rumor it's fielding a takeover offer from rival coal producer ANR. But Boeing shares, they are skidding after-hours on reports that deliveries of some of its new 787 Dreamliners could be delayed up to 10 months.
That's it from CNBC. We're first in business worldwide—now back to Chris and HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Passage to India. President Obama left for a 10-day trip to Asia today, but, before he left, the right wing was tripping all over itself, making up numbers about the scope and cost of the visit.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: I think we know that, just within a day or so, the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He's taking 2,000 people with him.
He will be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "HANNITY": Two hundred million dollars a day, 3,000 people? He's—he needs the whole Taj Mahal Hotel?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's actually reported. I mean, it seems like -
GLENN BECK, HOST, "GLENN BECK": No, no, no, it's $2 billion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
BECK: We have 34 warships. Have you seen this?
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Five hundred and seven rooms at the Taj Mahal, 40 airplanes -- $200 million a day this nation will spend on Obama's trip to India.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's not journalism. I don't know what you would call it, but that's just mouthing a line that was given to them by an Indian newspaper that had absolutely no source of proper information. All strange.
Anyway, first, Congresswoman Bachmann says they're renting 870 rooms at the Taj Mahal Hotel. The hotel only has about 560 rooms. Just the numbers here: The trip costs $200 million a day, makes it more expensive than the Afghanistan war, which costs $190 million a day, just for comparison.
President Clinton's six-day -- 12-day trip to Africa, which is no different than this president's trip, same airplane, same costs, with 1,300 staffers aboard, only cost $3.6 million a day, not $200 million.
Now, these are expensive trips, but this talk of $2 billion, $200 million a day, is malarkey, again, a word I have used a third time tonight, because it's appropriate, according to the GAO.
And now the White House communication director put out the following statement. I guess they felt they had to fight this clatter of disinformation.
Quote: "Let me—let us be unequivocal. The numbers reported have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we can't get into details associated with the procedures of security and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated, and President Obama's costs are in line with the costs of protecting previous presidents," obviously.
Joan Walsh is editor of Salon.com. Ari Rabin-Havt is vice president of Media Matters.
I want to go to Ari first of all.
You guys are pretty good at these numbers. And I want to ask you about this. First of all, I consider this whole thing disgustingly ad hominem. It's an attack on our president. And sometimes I do think there's an ethnic aspect. I have never heard of a president being attacked on the cost of his trips, like he's not worthy to travel, because of what?
Why isn't he worthy to make a presidential trip to one of the most important countries in the world right now, India? India and China are the future. If we're not dealing with them, I don't who we should be dealing with overseas. Denmark? I mean, who is he supposed to be dealing with?
And that's the question. I want to ask you the facts. How do you look at these facts? Ari, just tell me what—your assessment of these numbers that have been thrown out by that Indian newspaper that had no access to White House accounting, and then blown up, ballooned, appropriately, by Rush, Sean, and Bachmann. What a trio that is.
Your thoughts.
ARI RABIN-HAVT, VICE PRESIDENT, MEDIA MATTERS: Well, Media Matters, we heard these numbers, and we did what we thought journalists should do.
We picked up the phone. We called the White House. We said, is this true? And they got back to us and said, no, it's not.
You know, this just proves that right-wing journalism is an oxymoron. And, frankly, you know, I know the Chamber of Commerce, their big funders likes outsourcing, and they have decided to outsource their—their journalism to India, too, along with all the jobs.
MATTHEWS: But don't we have—don't we have an objective source of information—the GOA. The cost of these trips is generally—isn't it generally published? I thought when Congress goes, that these trips are published, the cost of these trips, aren't they?
Is it so hard to get to? I mean, you can extrapolate from previous trips—this isn't a different kind of trip. I don't understand. How you can just throw these numbers around, $200 million, more than the cost of the Afghanistan war.
Joan, I don't know, but I do think there's a personal aspect to this, and I mean personal about this president, this attack on him. And they were going to keep doing it, and I'm telling you, this is what it's about now. It's about personal destruction of the president, regardless of his policies.
He could go sign every tax cut they want, they're still going after him.
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Right. And you know, they went after him about redecorating his office, which he didn't even use public money, Chris. They went after his wife's last vacation. They just keep coming.
And it does—it starts to add up and it starts to seem like this president isn't entitled to the same kind of protection and the same kind of dignity, frankly, that other presidents are. And you know, you also had a president who preceded him, George W. Bush, who spent an inordinate amount of time simply on vacations. He didn't go on as many foreign trips because he didn't really like the rest of the world.
And then, you know, I'm also hearing well, you know, with unemployment so high and domestic problems so serious, he shouldn't be going. He's actually canceled a version of this trip, not exactly the same trip, twice to deal with domestic problems.
And this is really important part of the world, as you've been made this point. India is our partner. This is crucial on economic matters as well as strategic and diplomatic matters.
So, there's so many reasons for him to take the trip. It's important. There's no evidence that he's doing anything more than lavish than anybody else. And you do kind of get the feeling that it's all aimed at this particular president just doesn't deserve the dignity that others did.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I also think they're putting down India, too.
WALSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Like they don't like, it's third world, you know?
WALSH: Yes.
RABIN-HAVT: Absolutely, Chris.
MATTHEWS: It's not a white country. Let's be honest about it.
You know, I'm looking at a pattern here. For a long time, we had members about the United States Congress who bragged about the fact that they never had a passport. They've never been out of the country.
They're completely homegrown and didn't ever want to see—you know, I'd rather be a lamppost in New York than the president of France, the Popeye Doyle line. That's a cute line, but does anybody want them representing them on foreign policy when they have that idea?
French fries have to be changed to freedom fries. This sort of idiot high school stuff that the Republicans now call public information now, they're putting out statements.
And then, of course, Rush Limbaugh—I mean, is this rip and read from the Indian press? Is this the new standard now? Anything you get from some stringer operation—it wasn't even an American newspaper stringer over there. It was some newspaper, they just like the fact that it was dirt.
RABIN-HAVT: I mean, that's—that's what's sad about this situation. They'll take any piece of misinformation from an Indian newspaper, it will go up on the Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will repeat it without consequences. That report could have said President Obama's taking six space shuttles to India and they might have run with it.
WALSH: Right.
MATTHEWS: It could say that Rush Limbaugh weighs 800 pounds, are they going to run that? I mean, are we just going to run anything that comes off the press over there? Is this—is this news now? You don't have to check facts anymore. You just run anything you want as long as it's disparaging of our president, and he is our president.
WALSH: Yes, he is.
MATTHEWS: I don't think we can talk much more about this. We got the prime minister, the former president of Pakistan, coming up right now.
I want to thank you, Ari, for coming on tonight. Do some more research on this. Don't just call the White House. I mean it. Do some more research, I want to read what "Media Matters" does on this.
RABIN-HAVT: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Joan, as always.
Go ahead. Your thought, Ari. You have a last thought?
RABIN-HAVT: Well, I think—I think, you know, it's important for journalists to make those phone calls, and we can look at previous trips. But the fact that the right wing didn't even pick up the phone and call the White House and say, "Is this true?"—is, you know, embarrassing.
MATTHEWS: Well, why ruin a good story from their point of view?
Anyway, thank you.
We're going to talk about the policy implications of going to India. We go on this show look at it as a serious question. Is this the right move politically, geopolitically?
We've got this very tricky alliance, and you may not like it, but we've got an alliance with Pakistan right now in terms of fighting al Qaeda, because they're coming after us. That is a fact. And I want to find out whether this trip makes sense.
Let's bring Pakistani—former President Pervez Musharraf who will join us in just a moment with an important conversation. Not this thing.
Reminder: NBC's Matt Lauer sits down with George W. Bush to talk about his new book, "Decision Points," this Monday night at 8:00 p.m. I think it's going to be a good interview. I've seen a part of it, it's very impressive on Matt's part.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Chuck Todd and the NBC political unit put together a first look at the map of the 2012 presidential race. And here it is. The 18 states in blue, as you can see them, are states we're calling solid or likely lean Democrat. No surprise, the left and right coast there. While the 21 red states, you can see basically in the bottom there, in the upper plain states, are solid Republican.
And that leaves eight states in the toss-up category. The interesting states are in yellow there. That's—you can see them now: Florida, from the bottom, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, New Mexico, Virginia, and, of course, Wisconsin, which is real trouble for the Democrats. They're the real battlegrounds for the coming election, our first look at the fields for 2012.
HARDBALL will be right back.
MATTHEWS: We're back. President Obama's big trip to India, which is underway right now, has upset some Pakistani official who is see the move as an intentional snub of their country. While Pakistan remains a staunch U.S. ally and beneficiary of American support, Obama administration officials have questioned the reliability of the current government in Islamabad in rooting out al Qaeda and other extremist in the border region.
The CIA, by the way, has recently stepped up their drone attacks in that area. And just today, a suicide bomber killed at least 50 people at a mosque in northwestern Pakistan.
General Pervez Musharraf is the former president of Pakistan.
President Musharraf, it's an honor to have you on the program.
GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, FORMER PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: -- does Pakistan need to simply have a stronger, tougher, more aggressive government, even if it doesn't have to do it—it doesn't do it through democracy, it simply, bottom line, needs a stronger government?
MUSHARRAF: Any country needs a stronger government and a government which can make sure that the state is developing in the interests of the people, and the people are—the well-being and the welfare of the people is being looked after. That is the ultimate end, the objective of any government and any leader.
MATTHEWS: Is Zardari, the current president, and his government in Islamabad fighting al Qaeda aggressively enough for you?
MUSHARRAF: Well, I think they are. I think the army and the government is doing their maximum—
MATTHEWS: Maximum.
MUSHARRAF: -- to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban. And I am not really privy to the tactical details of the operations, but at the strategic level, I do understand the commitment of the army, of the military and government towards defeating al Qaeda and Taliban is certainly there.
MATTHEWS: I have two questions for you now. One is: do you take it as a snub—to use a gentleman's term, a "snub"—that the United States, our president, is visiting your neighboring country, India, while not visiting your country?
MUSHARRAF: I would take it as a disappointment, yes, indeed, because of two reasons. I think, first of all, I do—one does understand that visiting India is a bilateral issue between the United States and India and one wouldn't be overly endocentric in approach. But our condition as a Pakistani, certainly with Pakistan, isn't Pakistan an important player in the region? It is in the front role, fighting terrorism. It's a strategic partner towards fighting al Qaeda and Taliban towards eradication of terrorism.
So, this not visiting Pakistan and then also, another important issue, Kashmir is a sensitive issue with Pakistanis. It is, in fact, the world ought to be concerned that Kashmir dispute—without solving Kashmir dispute, it's leading to extremism within our society.
MATTHEWS: Right.
MUSHARRAF: There are a number of mujahedeen groups which have emerged who want to go in and support their Indian brethren against the Indian army. So, we have to resolve the Kashmir dispute and this is what I've always been saying.
Now, I don't think there is going to be any talk about Kashmir. So I
in the overall context, I think it doesn't resonate well with the people of Pakistan. They take it that the United States or the president of the United States is not that concerned about Pakistan's own sensitivities and interests.
MATTHEWS: You know, the United States, the people watching our program right now, are primarily interested—I understand the Kashmir concern—they're concerned about terrorism coming from Yemen right now. And they're wondering whether, from your understanding of the terrorist network, of al Qaeda, is it all connected? Is it all intertwined?
In other words, the people holed up in the northwest territory of Pakistan. Are they helping the people of Yemen, the al Qaeda folks in Yemen to come after us? We've just got a big bombing attempt in our big city, in Chicago, that might have been quite lethal. Do you believe the people, the terrorists in your country are working with the terrorists in Yemen against us?
MUSHARRAF: Well, let me contradict what you said. I think if the United States and the people of the United States are concerned about themselves and they are not concerned about Pakistan's feelings are, what the people of Pakistan are, I don't agree with this attitude.
I think relationships, and relationships between two countries, where a lot of people here ask, why do the people of Pakistan dislike the United States? You ought to be concerned with that. You ought to be concerned about the sensitivities of people of Pakistan.
So, therefore, I don't agree that they are more concerned about what is happening in Yemen, et cetera. And they couldn't care less about what is happening in Kashmir or about Pakistan's concerns.
Now let me come to your answer to the next question. Yes, indeed, terrorism, al Qaeda and Taliban, in Afghanistan, in the tribal agencies of Pakistan, the mujahedeen and fighting in Kashmir, extremism in the Muslim youth is on the rise in India. With extremism in our society, in Pakistan's society, all of them are developing a nexus.
And now, it's international connotation. We know about AQIM, al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, centered around Algeria and Mali. AQAP, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, centered around Somalia and Yemen. Yes, indeed, all of these will try to develop a nexus between themselves.
MATTHEWS: That's disturbing, sir. Thank you.
MUSHARRAF: To some extent, they do develop a nexus. And this is what needs to be controlled and checked and fought against.
MATTHEWS: That's very informative, sir. Thank you so much for coming on our tonight. President Pervez Musharraf—thank you, sir, for joining us.
When we return let me finish with the solecistic inhabited by our former president, George W. Bush.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with George W. Bush.
You know, years ago, a member of the British cabinet got caught in an embarrassment and, of course, denied it, to which his accuser said, well, he would, wouldn't he? Denial is the norm of political life, especially of the awful.
President Bush says the Iraq War was justified because it prevented another 9/11. Well, 9/11 was a network operation involving cells in Germany, heavy recruitment in Saudi Arabia and, of course, flight training down in Florida. The one country not involved in 9/11 was Iraq. The attack of 9/11 was conspired among a web of jihadists, religion fanatics without loyalty to a particular state.
Saddam Hussein of Iraq, on the other hand, was a Baathist, a secular leader of a country.
So, how would a war with Iraq prevent another attack from worldwide elements of al Qaeda? Or is Bush arguing something that cannot logically be denied for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with logic with discernible cause and effect, with anything tangible.
Is he saying that the war which caused 77,000 lives was justified because he thought it would prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11? In other words, if the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, which no one else has ever been able to substantiate, was in his own mental wiring, he's guiltless before history.
Well, there's a reason that Bush lives in this solecistic world, a world you built not of sheer human knowledge of cause and effect or of tangible fact even, but of what George W. Bush sees out there.
He describes the sickening feeling that came to him when the arriving coalition forces in Iraq couldn't find any of the biological, chemical, or nuclear materials that he said were the reason for our going to war there. But if the weapons weren't there, how did the Iraq War prevent another 9/11? Is Bush really arguing that the motive of that war was, by itself, would stop us from getting hit again? That we got protection from terrorism by fighting a war that turned out to kill tens of thousands of people that we stopped the use of terrorist weapons even though we didn't find them?
Does he really live in this world or this "house of mirrors" where what he intends to be the truth is the truth?
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with the great Ed Schultz.
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.> PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
A Matter of Life and Death
On the DVD for A Matter of Life and Death, Martin Scorsese tells a story about how, when he was growing up, the filmmakers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger sort of felt like some mythical, lost duo of directors whose work was massively overlooked and re-edited, only to be fully appreciated in the '80s once Scorsese had the power to do so. Watching their films now makes that story seem almost under-exaggerated as every film that comes out on DVD is confoundingly innovative, as if it will be made ten years into the future. And this is no exception to the film, A Matter of Life and Death, a rich, complicated fantasy that leaves so many similar films of the time in its dust.
David Niven plays WWII fighter pilot, Peter Carter, who makes one last radio call to a female soldier, June, as his plane is crashing. Coming to terms with his death, Niven uses the call to calm his nerves and over the course of the conversation the two fall in love, having never met.Continue Reading


text:
Unlike the older large frame models, the PX is fitted with a split handlebar. If the cast handlebar lower part is damaged, it must be imperatively replaced. The handlebar lower parts can be supplied for models with a drum brake and a disc brake.
For the PX with a drum brake, we can offer the handlebar lower parts in LML original equipment manufacturer quality. The handlebar lower part of the '98 models is perfect for retrofitting on disc brakes as the fixture for the master brake cylinder is already pre-mounted.
SIP-TIP: Order new screws for the steering head and set of bearings at the same time. Particularly effective combined with the chrome-plated steering head cover.
OEM Numbers (for the purpose of comparison)


text:
A molecule that helps cells stick together is significantly over-produced in two very different diseases - rheumatoid arthritis and a variety of cancers, including breast and brain tumors, concludes a new study. The scientists who made the discovery also found candidate drugs to inhibit the molecule, cadherin-11, one of which is already in a clinical trial.
The study, published in Oncotarget, was led by investigators at Georgetown University Medical Center, and included collaborators from Harvard and Columbia Universities, Mayo Clinic and Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
"Our findings suggest that cadherin-11 is important for cancer progression as well as rheumatoid arthritis - for reasons we do not fully understand. Nevertheless, we are rapidly translating this discovery for use in the clinic," says the study's senior investigator, Stephen Byers, PhD, a professor and molecular oncologist at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Byers and his Georgetown colleagues, Shahin Assefnia DVM, Siva Dakshanurthy PhD, and Jaime Guidry Auvil, PhD, have found that cadherin-11 is over-expressed in 15 percent of breast cancers, and in many glioblastomas. He believes the molecule also contributes to pancreatic cancer.
"What most of these cancers all have in common is cadherin-11 and a poor prognosis, with no effective therapies," Byers says. "Cadherin-11 expression is required for tumors to grow. If it is blocked, the cancers in cell line studies and in animals just stop growing - which is really quite striking."
The Georgetown team has developed a small molecule agent to shut down cadherin-11 in cancer, and, by screening drugs now on the market, found that the well known arthritis drug Celebrex acts in a similar way. While it is unlikely that Celebrex could be used as a single agent against cancer because it would be too toxic at the level needed to impair cadherin-11, a Celebrex-related molecule works the same way, and may potentially be less toxic.
Co-author Michael Brenner, MD, at Harvard University, has designed an antibody that can shut down cadherin-11 in rheumatoid arthritis. The Oncotarget study demonstrated that Brenner's antibody worked in animal models of tumors that made cadherin-11.
It was chance that he and Brenner were working on the same molecule at the same time and came to know of each other's work. Coincidentally, co-author Lawrence Shapiro, PhD, at Columbia, was building a crystal structure of cadherin-11 and is now working with Byers and Brenner to show how the molecule binds to Celebrex and other small molecule drug cadherin-11 inhibitors.
This close collaboration led Byers, Brenner and Shapiro to apply for a grant last year from the National Cancer Institute's Provocative Questions project. They proposed answering the question related to the connection between drugs, such as anti-inflammatory agents, that can protect against cancer and other conditions.


text:
Corning Optical Communications LLC, part of Corning Incorporated's (NYSE:GLW) Telecommunications segment, will highlight flexibility in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) deployment solutions at the 2011 FTTH Conference & Expo, Sept. 26-30 in Orlando.
In its updated and leading edge environmental exhibit (booth #1013), Corning will feature its latest solutions designed to make FTTH deployment seamless and easy. Customers will get firsthand experience with Corning's flexible FTTH deployment solution sets, beginning with a compact solution for the central office and progressing through three preconnectorized methods of reaching the subscriber premises: Distributed Split, Local Convergence and Branch/Star Topology. Each solution set includes interoperable components that help maximize cost efficiency in network designs.
The exhibit will include demonstrations of the Corning Optical Communications' OptiSnap® Connector as well as splice equipment and test equipment. Corning will also display an interactive 46-inch LCD touch-screen television; by simply touching an image, visitors can access detailed information about the products and solutions on display.
In addition to these activities, Corning will be participating in several events at the conference:
- On Thurs., Sept. 29, at 10:15 a.m., Bob Whitman, Director, Global FTTH Programs for Corning Optical Communications, will moderate the "Large Carrier Perspectives Panel." Executives from some of the globe's most influential carriers will discuss successes, challenges and lessons learned from their fiber-to-the-home initiatives.
- On Thurs., Sept. 29, at 3:15 p.m., Dr. Thomas Knuth of Corning will present "Ways to Solve the MDU Challenge of Deploying Fiber to the Subscriber." Dr. Knuth will review key factors for choosing an effective MDU architecture and help participants understand the relevance of each factor on the business case.
- On Friday, Sept. 30, at the 12:30 p.m. closing session, Corning will present the eighth annual FTTXcellence Award. The FTTXcellence Award, presented by Corning and Lightwave magazine, honors an individual for his or her contributions to the deployment of optical access networks in North America.
Corning's Evolant® Solutions products will be used as the optical distribution network within the FTTH Council's FiberZone, using an industry-standard passive optical network architecture. The FiberZone will feature Corning Optical Communications' compact Eclipse® Hardware frame and splitter module at the central office. The last-mile segment will feature the OptiSheath™ UltraNAP™ Terminal, which offers four single-fiber connector ports that feed four individual subscribers, along with two multi-fiber ports. The multi-fiber ports will branch into two separate OptiSheath MultiPort Terminals, where the ROC® Drop Cable Assembly completes the FTTH connection.
For additional information on Corning Optical Communications products and services, contact a customer service representative at 1-800-743-2675, toll free in the United States, or (+1) 828-901-5000, international, or visit the Web site at www.corning.com/opcomm.
About Corning Incorporated
Corning Incorporated (www.corning.com) is the world leader in specialty glass and ceramics. Drawing on more than 160 years of materials science and process engineering knowledge, Corning creates and makes keystone components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. Our products include glass substrates for LCD televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions for a number of industries including semiconductor, aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology.
Media Relations Contacts:
Stephanie Hicks
(682) 214-1179
Joseph M. Dunning
(607) 974-5006


text:
Juniors Super Skinny Jeggings
fabric provides stretch,regular length, skinny fit, 5 pocket style,mid rise waist,zip fly with button closure,inseam: 30in, taken from size 5,cotton/polyester/rayon/spandex,imported
Browse all deals at T.J. Maxx
See more in Jeans
* This offer may contain time-sensitive information and offers. Please check with T.J. Maxx to confirm actual price & availability.
Please enter your name
- Be the first to comment!
1 location
400 N 48th St Ste D1
T.J. Maxx
400 N 48th St Ste D1
Lincoln, NE 68504


text:
Official OS 184.108.40.2063 from Partner Communications has reached the BlackBerry Bold 9780. If you have a Bold 9780, get out that USB cord and give your a device a fresh OS. Don't forget to drop a comment below and let us know how it's working out for you!
Note: The Software Platform and Applications version numbers can be found under Options-About screen on the handheld.


text:
Results 1 to 1 of 1
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Mexicos New Administration Needs to Make Border Security a Priority
By Nelson Balido
Published October 20, 2012
Fox News Latino
A study released earlier this year by the Pew Hispanic Center caught my attention, and its findings might require observers of U.S.-Mexico relations to recalibrate their thinking.
According to Pew data, immigration legal and illegal from Mexico to the United States has flat-lined. The reports writers found that in the five-year period of 2005-2010, 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the U.S., but thats the same number of Mexicans who immigrated from the U.S. to Mexico during that same period.
Certainly the weak U.S. economy has played a role in the declining immigration numbers. After all, a struggling U.S. jobs picture combined with increased workplace enforcement measures, such as E-Verify, makes this country less attractive to the would-be immigrant worker.
But what cannot be discounted is the commitment and professionalism of the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol, whose enforcement strategies have resulted in a dramatic drop in apprehensions from a fiscal year 2000 high of 1.6 million to an FY 2011 low of 327,000. Leaders like David Aguilar, the most senior official at Customs and Border Protection and a former Border Patrol national chief, have made border security a top priority, and the proof is in the numbers. Crossing illegally into the U.S. from Mexico is just tougher than it has ever been.
The undocumented immigrant of today is now likely to be what is known in enforcement circles as an OTMs, or other than Mexicans. My conversations with agents in the field in South Texas confirm that theyre increasingly seeing immigrants from places like Central America, South America, India and even the Middle East who have used Mexico as jumping-off point into the U.S.
This is where Mexicos new presidential administration comes in.
Former State of Mexico Gov. Enrique Peña Nieto will be sworn in as Mexicos new president on December 1. So far, the president-elect has made all the right moves, surrounding himself with a topnotch transition team and sending a message to multinational businesses especially those in the U.S. that Mexico is open for business, as he even remains open to the idea of allowing increased foreign investment in such Mexican points of pride as its oil industry.
Ive been able to get to know some of the top transition leaders of Team Peña Nieto, all of who will have significant positions in the new administration, through my weekly contacts with them, and Ive been struck by their desire to increase Mexico competitiveness in the world economy, attract investment and grow jobs. Mexicos economy has, for the most part, weathered the worst of the economic downturn, meaning that more young Mexicans can reasonably seek and find work in their patria rather than heading north.
But with more Mexicans becoming part of the countrys growing middle class, the new president cannot forget that his country still needs to help quell northward illegal migration into the United States, even if its not Mexicans making that trek. When he takes office, President Peña Nieto must deploy a strategy to gain operational control of his border with Guatemala.
Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and former commissioner of CBP, Alan Bersin, acknowledged that Central America is the emerging new source of illegal immigration when he said in a speech last month, That is why we must work with Mexico to restore the rule of law to the Mexican-Guatemalan border over the next ten years.
This shift in migration patterns is occurring as many commentators are saying that 2013 could be the year for significant movement on U.S. immigration reform, after previous efforts fell apart due to intractable political differences.
Americans should be proud that our country, despite crawling out of this Great Recession, is still a country that people from all over the world want to build a life in. And the American business community is very aware that an economically healthy Mexico is good for the U.S., as it means a more competitive North America in the face of an Asia on the rise.
But I would counsel President-Elect Peña Nieto that the American goodwill that he will experience could quickly sour if U.S. public opinion begins to view him as an able, business-savvy leader, but as someone who doesnt understand his neighbor to the north and the pitched battles that have been waged over immigration.
Op-Ed: MexicoSupport our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn


text:
The World Bank on Tuesday said it granted Lebanon an 80-million-dollar loan to finance infrastructure projects in Lebanese municipalities, reported the Daily Star newspaper.
The accord was signed by World Bank country director for Lebanon, Padmanabharao Hari Prasad, and the Lebanese interior and municipal affairs minister, Michel Murr.
Prasad said the money would be used for roads, street lighting, sidewalks, small water supply, sewerage and drainage infrastructure, the paper added.
He said that, by concentrating on all but the four largest municipalities, "we hope to focus on the municipalities with low revenues and reach a high number of poor" people.
He added that about 12 million dollars of the loan will be available for towns in the south of the country.
"With the recovery, after 22 years, of this territory, this loan can help provide needed infrastructure right away," Prasad was quoted as saying - Albawaba.com
© 2000 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)


text:
Well this is rather shocking. Director Jon M. Chu's G.I. Joe: Retaliation was slated to open on June 29th, a little over a month away, but now Paramount has made a last-minute decision to push the film back all the way to March 29th of 2013. Deadline reports that the move was made in order to do a "conscientious 3D" post-conversion. This is a bit nuts, as we've already seen a ton of promotional material including trailers, TV spots, character posters, and even a fair share of interviews. Hit the jump for much more.
Per Deadline, a Paramount studio exec notes that 3D betters the international box office of a film greatly and cites the massive success of The Hunger Games as a reason to move to March. Currently the only other two films slated for release on March 29th are the sci-fi adaptation of Twilight author Stephenie Meyer's novel The Host and Tyler Perry's The Marriage Counselor.
3D may better international box office, but hasn't the studio already blown their marketing wad on the film already? We've seen a number of trailers that were precisely made to drum up awareness in increments, but how will they market the pic next year when there's no new footage left to show without spoiling the movie entirely?
It's possible that the 3D may boost international ticket sales, but I'm not convinced that the release date shift will drastically improve the film's domestic performance. The Hunger Games made a shit-ton of money because the book series has an insanely large and rabid fanbase, and because Gary Ross made a good movie. Moreover, I'm confused as to how they plan to launch a brand new marketing campaign early next year. Are they just going to pretend that all the promotional material released over the past few months never happened? Regardless, this move definitely allows for greater box office potential for the films opening on and around G.I. Joe's old date, including Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and The Amazing Spider-Man.
I was actually kind of onboard with Jon M. Chu's G.I. Joe follow-up. Dwayne Johnson adds an enormous amount of charisma to every film he's in, and the trailers promised lots of ninja goodness. That said, I'm not sure that my cautious optimism will hold for another nine months. What about you, fine readers? Does this release date shift impact your anticipation level for the film?